Bug#220858: apt: apt-get build-dep can issue spurious complaints about broken installation
retitle 220858 Incorrectly suggests "apt-get -f install" when build-deps are broken
thanks
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 04:44:39PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 11:04:13AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > What does -o Debug::BuildDeps=true say?
>
> redwald:~# apt-get -o Debug::BuildDeps=true build-dep subversion
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Looking for debhelper...
> Is installed
> Looking for libneon24-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for apache2-dev...
> Checking provider apache2-threaded-dev
> Trying to install apache2-dev
> Looking for libapr0-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for libdb4.1-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for libtool...
> Is installed
> Looking for libexpat1-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for zlib1g-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for bison...
> Checking provider bison++
> Is installed
> Looking for patch...
> Is installed
> Looking for python...
> Is installed
> Looking for time...
> Is installed
> Looking for python2.3-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for autotools-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for autoconf...
> Is installed
> Looking for swig1.3...
> Is installed
> Looking for libsasl2-dev...
> Is installed
> Looking for xsltproc...
> Is installed
> Looking for docbook-xsl-stylesheets...
> Trying to install docbook-xsl-stylesheets
> Looking for build-essential...
> Is installed
> E: Some broken packages were found while trying to process build-dependencies for subversion.
OK, the message is essentially correct then. Each build-dependency is
individually satisfiable, but the overall relationship is broken due to the
dependencies of these packages. If you can think of a better way to express
that idea in a short message, I'm open to suggestions.
This happened with your sources (and not with, say, unstable alone) because
you have a real (non-virtual) apache2-dev in your sources.list, but it's not
compatible with the other apache stuff which is required.
> You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these.
It's only this message which is completely bogus; apt-get -f install isn't
going to fix this situation.
--
- mdz
Reply to: